Hoi Kwong Yu v. Alibaba Group U.S., Inc.

Background

Calvin Yu died in June 2020 in a fire allegedly caused by a malfunctioning 3D printer. The opinion says that Shenzhen Tronxy Technology Co. manufactured the printer and that AliExpress E-Commerce One operated the online platform through which the decedent bought it. His parents sued the defendants on their own behalf and as successors to their son’s estate, asserting strict liability and negligence. Shenzhen Tronxy had not appeared.

One week before the deadline for completing document discovery, the plaintiffs and AliExpress submitted two discovery letters. The first concerned AliExpress’s requests for the plaintiffs’ and decedent’s medical records and the decedent’s internet-browsing history. The second concerned the plaintiffs’ requests for documents and depositions involving AliExpress employees and corporate representatives.

Medical records

AliExpress argued that the parents’ medical records could show preexisting conditions, contributing factors, medical treatment, and mental-health treatment relevant to their claimed physical injuries and emotional distress. It also sought the decedent’s medical records from before the fire, arguing that his medical history, mental-health conditions, and drug use could bear on his conduct, ability to escape, causation, comparative fault, life expectancy, and damages.

The plaintiffs agreed that AliExpress could seek records related to claimed injuries but opposed requests for unrelated records. They said the father had not received treatment for his claimed injuries, that the mother’s mental-health records had been requested from Kaiser, and that the decedent’s earlier medical records implicated privacy interests.

The court said the parties had partly agreed on the parents’ records, making part of the dispute moot. It also said the parties had not adequately conferred as required by the applicable standing orders. The court stated that a lookback period for the decedent’s medical records was appropriate because the records could be relevant to causation, comparative fault, life expectancy, and damages. It did not finally resolve which records had to be produced. Instead, it ordered the parties to confer and narrow the remaining dispute concerning the parents’ records related to claimed physical injuries and the decedent’s medical records.

Internet-browsing history

AliExpress sought the decedent’s browsing history to determine what he knew about operating or customizing the 3D printer, whether he downloaded updates or software affecting the printer’s safety mechanisms, and whether his online activity showed experiments that could have contributed to the fire. The plaintiffs agreed to produce the history only after searches for terms such as “Tronxy” or “printer.” AliExpress sought broader access.

The court recognized that browsing history can implicate privacy interests. It said that producing all browsing history could be too broad, while limiting production only to information found through the plaintiffs’ proposed terms could be too narrow. The court also noted that the parties had not addressed how much privacy protection survives a person’s death. It suggested possible compromises, including reasonable time limits, search terms proposed by AliExpress, a third-party search vendor, plaintiffs’ review of responsive information, and a protective order.

Plaintiffs’ requests

The court found the disputes concerning the plaintiffs’ document requests and depositions premature because the parties had not adequately conferred. It directed them to discuss whether requested documents existed, whether they had been produced, and what genuine disputes remained. The court instructed the parties to use a streamlined written exchange before filing any updated discovery brief.

Disposition

The court did not grant or deny the discovery requests. It ordered the parties to confer and file updated disputes by noon on February 5, 2025, while allowing them to change that deadline by agreement. It scheduled a discovery hearing for February 6, 2025, and stated that the disputes were preserved.